Clinical relevance of intracranial hemorrhage after thrombectomy versus medical management for large core infarct: a secondary analysis of the SELECT2 randomized trial.

BACKGROUND

The incidence of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and its effect on the outcomes after endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for patients with large core infarcts have not been well-characterized.

METHODS

SELECT2 trial follow-up imaging was evaluated using the Heidelberg Bleeding Classification (HBC) to define hemorrhage grade. The association of ICH with clinical outcomes and treatment effect was examined.

RESULTS

Of 351 included patients, 194 (55%) and 189 (54%) demonstrated intracranial and intracerebral hemorrhage, respectively, with a higher incidence in EVT (134 (75%) and 130 (73%)) versus medical management (MM) (60 (35%) and 59 (34%), both P<0.001). Hemorrhagic infarction type 1 (HBC=1a) and type 2 (HBC=1b) accounted for 93% of all hemorrhages. Parenchymal hematoma (PH) type 1 (HBC=1c) and type 2 (HBC=2) were observed in 1 (0.6%) EVT-treated and 4 (2.2%) MM patients. Symptomatic ICH (sICH) (SITS-MOST definition) was seen in 0.6% EVT patients and 1.2% MM patients. No trend for ICH with core volumes (P=0.10) or Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) (P=0.74) was observed. Among EVT patients, the presence of any ICH did not worsen clinical outcome (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 90 days: 4 (3-6) vs 4 (3-6); adjusted generalized OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.47, P>0.99) or modify EVT treatment effect (P

CONCLUSIONS

ICH was present in 75% of the EVT population, but PH or sICH were infrequent. The presence of any ICH did not worsen functional outcomes or modify EVT treatment effect at 90-day follow-up. The high rate of hemorrhages overall still represents an opportunity for adjunctive therapies in EVT patients with a large ischemic core.

Informations de copyright

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interests: MC has received consulting fees from Medtronic and Microvention. AH has received grants from RESCUE - ICAD – Medtronic. He has also reported consulting fees from Medtronic, Microvention, Stryker, and Cerenovus. SO-G has received grants from Stryker Neurovascular and Microvention. He has also received modest consulting fees from Medtronic, Stryker Neurovascular, and Microvention. JB is a member of the speakers’ bureau for Stryker Neurovascular and Microvention, and holds leadership roles in Inspire S and A registries (Medtronics). TNN is a DSMB member for the SELECT2 trial and has received grants from Medtronic. SD is a DSMB member for the SELECT2 trial and on the advisory board for Medtronic. JF and LW are DSMB members for the SELECT2 trial. GA reports compensation from iSchemaView for consultant services; and stock holdings in iSchemaView. AS has received grant support from Stryker Neurovascular for the SELECT2 trial. He is also a member of the speaker’s bureau and advisory board for Stryker Neurovascular. The other authors have no competing interest relevant to this study.